Balbir is 48 years old. She lives in a small council house with her two teenage sons. She suffered a major stroke, leaving her with severe physical disabilities. She is no longer able to use the stairs to reach her bedroom or bathroom, she is confined to the ground floor of her home.The local authority refused to build Balbir a downstairs bathroom and toilet. They said Balbir could strip-wash in the kitchen and use the commode in her living room, which despite being the family's main space for spending time together, had also become her bedroom. As Balbir has IBS, she was forced to rely on carers to come and empty the commode. Also, as a Muslim, she relied on her carers to bring her a bowl to perform ablution so she could pray, this made Balbir feel embarassed and distressed. Balbir and her two sons live like this for over a year.

Balbir has been able to get help from a local advocacy service who were working with BIHR and had received training on human rights. Tim, an advocate from the service, visited Balbir to discuss her situation. After hearing her story he explained how her human rights may be relevant. They decided to write a letter to the local authority explaining that Balbir’s circumstances were humiliating and in danger of breaching the right to be free from degrading treatment, a right which the Human Rights Act says local authorities must not breach. As a result, the local authority decided to carry out an assessment of Balbir's needs. This recommended that an accessible downstairs bathroom with a walk-in shower should be built, and the local authority made sure this happened. Balbir now lives comfortably in her home with her sons.

Wendy, a former magistrate, is 81 years old. She has lived in her home for 32 years. Wendy has recently developed severe dementia. Her son John cares for her at home, with the help of the local authority. When social workers ask Wendy about some scratches and bruises she can't remember how they happened. The social workers decide to visit Wendy when John was out shopping and take Wendy away to a nursing home. They had no authorisation to do this.

When he returned home, John could not find his mum and no one told him where she was. It took John 19 days to find Wendy, and only after he had asked a lawyer to write to the council to try and locate her. John wanted to visit his mother, but because of the unexplained injuries, the council restricted John and Wendy’s contact, despite not investigating how the injuries had occurred. John and Wendy were not allowed to meet unsupervised for more than a year.

After sixteen months, the council dropped its (uninvestigated) allegations of abuse against John. The family decided to take court action because they believed keeping Wendy in the care home was a breach of her right to liberty, which is protected by the Human Rights Act (Article 5).

The judge found the way the council had handled their concerns about Wendy’s welfare was ‘woefully inadequate’. They had not investigated whether she was at risk before they took her away from her home, and they had not got the correct authorisation to keep her in a care home. Therefore, the local authority had breached Wendy’s right to liberty. In addition, the judge said the council had breached her right to respect for her private life in her own home, protected by the HRA in Article 8. This right also protects Wendy’s right to a family life with her son, John, which was breached when their visits were restricted. Wendy and John are now free to visit whenever they want.

Dora and Simon had been married for 59 years. Dora was blind and had recently developed Alzheimer’s. She and Simon were injured in a fall at home, and Simon was no longer able to care for her while he recovered. During this time, Dora was moved into a local publically funded nursing home.

It became clear that Dora would have to stay in a nursing home, but Simon visited her every day. However, their relationship was threatened when the local authority decided to move Dora into a permanent nursing home that was too far away for Simon and their children to visit.

Simon contacted Counsel and Care. They helped Simon to challenge the decision to move Dora on the basis that his and Dora’s right to family life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act was threatened by the move and the local authority needed to consider this right when making their decision. This helped Simon to persuade social services to allow Dora to remain in the nursing home close to her family and to Simon.

Peter was admitted to a London mental health hospital. He is an informal patient, so he has not been "sectioned" under the Mental Health Act. This means he is entitled to leave the hospital whenever he likes. If staff have concerns about Peter's health or safety they could use powers under the Mental Health Act to detain him.

Peter wants to leave the ward to visit his sister and his friends. On the three occasions he tries to do this the nurses tell him it was not in his best interests to leave. So even though Peter was not detained and free to leave, in practice he was not able to.

Peter had access to an advocate, Rana, who had received human rights training from BIHR. After discussing the issue with Peter, Rana wrote to the hospital on his behalf flagging up concerns that this situation was breaching Peter's right to liberty, protected by Article 5 in the Human Rights Act. Rana explained that although Peter is an informal patient, he was being treated as though the procedures for detaining him had been used. So although he should have been free to leave, he was being detained without any of the safeguards that would have been available if he was detained under the Mental Health Act. Following this Peter's relationship with the nurses greatly improved, and he was permitted to leave when he wanted to. Peter’s mental health improved greatly, and he was discharged shortly after.

Zeena and her brother and two sisters lived at home with their parents. They were first referred to social services by a health visitor when Zeena, the oldest sibling, was 5 years old. Zeena was reported to be stealing food. The family was reviewed but the case file was closed. A neighbour then reported that the children were locked out of the home for most of the day and their grandmother complained to social services about the mother's care and discipline of the children. When investigating a burglary, the police reported that the children’s bedrooms were filthy, and their mattresses sodden with urine. School teachers also reported bruising and their concerns about the childrens health and behaviour.

Despite these complaints and reports to social services, the children were not removed for five years, when they were placed in emergency care at the insistence of their mother. The children were able to access legal advice, and they decided to take the local authority to court for breaching their right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment because of their failure to take action (this right is protected by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

This happened before the Human Rights Act was law, which meant the case had to go to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court said the treatment was serious enough to be inhuman and degrading. The psychiatrist who treated the children described it as ‘horrific’. They said that after the local authority became aware of what was happening at home, following the warning of the health visitor, they had a positive duty to protect the children from the inhuman treatment they knew was happening and had the power to stop.

Two women, DSD and NBV, were able to rely on the Human Rights Act to seek justice a catalogue of police failings after they were raped by John Worboy, dubbed the “black cab rapist”. It was the Human Rights Act, and its protection against inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3), that meant these two women were able to hold the police to account. This right can include a duty to investigate serious harm, and the judge found systemic failures throughout the police investigation and that but these NBV would not have been raped at all. He also found that both DSD and NBV had not been supported or believed.

DSD was picked up by Worboy in 2003. He told her he had won the lottery and coerced her into having a drink with him to celebrate. She has no recollection of anything after this. It turned out that Worboy raped her and drove her a stranger’s house thinking it was her address. This man convinced Worboy to take her to the police station. The desk officer did not take Worboy’s details, and instead believed DSD was on drugs, and sent her on to the hospital. The next morning, her boyfriend rang the police to report that she had been raped. DSD contacted police many times that year, believing her case wasn’t being taken seriously. Later that year the police closed the case, recording DSD’s fear that the taxi driver who raped her would ‘strike again’.

Four years later in 2007, NBV was also picked up by Worboy. Again he told her he had won the lottery, however NBV didn’t finish the celebratory drink he offered and her and her last memory is of him forcing her to take a pill. The next morning, when she called the police to report the assault, they got the registration of the taxi from CCTV. Worboy was arrested and interviewed, but he was released.

In 2008, a routine computer check linked 4 assaults with similar circumstances. Days later, Worboy was arrested and a homemade ‘rape kit’ found at his house provided physical evidence of the rapes. By the end of the investigation, police had 105 allegations against Worboy. In this case, the Human Rights Act meant victims of crime were able secure and admission from the police that they should have done more to investigate the crime. Following the case, the Metropolitan Police agreed to train their front desk officers in recognising signs of sexual assault.

Source: DSD and NBV v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2014] EWHC 436 (QB)

Beryll and Richard Driscoll had been married for over 65 years. They had spent very little time apart and by 2006 she was blind and he could not walk unaided. He was her eyes and she helped him to walk. When Mr Driscoll fell ill, the local authority moved him to a residential care home. Mrs Driscoll was not allowed to go with him, as she did not fit the criteria, and they only saw each other twice a week for 7 months.

Speaking to the media, she said ‘We have never been separated in all our years and for it to happen now, when we need each other so much, is so upsetting. I am lost without him – we were a partnership’.

A public campaign launched by the family, supported by the media and various human rights experts, including BIHR, and older people’s organisations, argued that the local authority had breached the couple’s right to respect for family life (Article 8). The authority agreed to reverse its decision and offered the wife a subsidised place so that she could join her husband in the care home.

Perry Clarke is a 27 year old man who until 2013 had his care and support provided by the Borough of Enfield. In 2013 he became ordinarily resident in Sutton. Perry has severe epilepsy and mental health and behavioural difficulties. When Enfield passed his care on to Sutton, they recommended that his care continued to be provided by the specialist service that had delivered his care package since 2011.

Sutton did not initially reassess Perry. When they did it was decided that instead of the specialist care package Perry had at the time, where he was supported by staff who had the skills to administer lifesaving medication, he would be moved to a non-specialist service that was nearly a thousand pounds a week cheaper. Perry’s lawyers applied to the court to challenge the decision, which was made against all evidence that suggested his needs had not changed and the new care package would not meet his needs.

Sutton agreed the decision engaged Perry’s Article 8 right to private and family life, home and correspondence, which meant that those rights should be considered in the decision. The judge found that the new care provider proposed by Sutton had not managed to explain how they would manage Perry’s health conditions under a significantly reduced care plan. The local authority were moving Perry from his own tenancy, his own home, to a place the local authority had chosen where there was no care plan in place for his needs – a potentially life threatening decision. Perry should also have been involved in the decision making process about his own life and home. This breached his right to respect for home and private life and the judge overturned the local authority’s decision to terminate the original care package.

There are plenty of laws that protect the traditional idea of ‘home’ but only the Human Rights Act recognises that living in residential care is as much a home to the people who live there and only the Human Rights Act protects people from the wrenching consequences of losing that home.

During her afternoon ward round at a London hospital, a consultant came across an older woman, Mrs. Jones, who was crying out in distress. Mrs. Jones was in a wheelchair and when the consultant looked more closely, she discovered that she had been strapped in, and this was the reason for her distress. The consultant asked staff why the woman was being restrained in this way. They explained that they had strapped her into the wheelchair to stop her walking around, because they were worried she might fall over and hurt herself. The consultant told staff that while their concerns were understandable, strapping Mrs. Jones into a wheelchair for long periods was not an appropriate response, because her human rights, and in particular her right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3) had not been taken into account. Staff quickly agreed to unstrap Mrs. Jones and, after she was assessed by a physiotherapist, they were encouraged to actively support her to improve her mobility.

Robert, is a disabled gay man who receives support from the local authority. The authority team had a policy of assisting the people they worked with to participate in social activities, when they wanted to. Robert, asked if a support worker could accompany him to a gay pub. His request was denied even though other heterosexual service users were regularly supported to attend pubs and clubs of their choice. During a BIHR training session, Robert’s advocate realised that Robert could challenge the decision by invoking his right to respect for private life (Article 8) and his right not to be discriminated against (Article 14) on grounds of his sexual orientation.

Amrit is a young man who was placed in residential care on a short-term basis, due to mental health problems. During a visit one day, his parents noticed bruising on his body, which no one seemed to be able to explain. They raised the issue with the managers at the home but their concerns were dismissed. They were also told that they were no longer permitted to visit Amrit. After participating in a BIHR training session the parents approached the care home once again and invoked Amrit’s right not to be treated in an inhuman and degrading way (Article 3) and their own right to respect for family life (Article 8). As a result, the ban on their visits was revoked and an investigation was conducted into the bruising on their son’s body.

Lola, a pregnant woman who had been refused asylum, was living in government-arranged accommodation. She was issued a ‘termination of support’ notice while she was giving birth in hospital. She was a lone parent and this was her second child. The notice period expired while she was still in hospital and on returning home, she and her children faced eviction. After receiving BIHR training, a manager at a voluntary sector organisation supporting Lola suggested to the housing provider that evicting the family in these circumstances might breach their right not to be treated in an inhuman and degrading way (Article 3). The manager suggested that the housing provider reconsider its decision before taking enforcement action. The provider decided to amend the status of the notice, giving Lola’s voluntary sector advocate time to apply for further support for the family under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The application was successful and alternative accommodation for the family was secured.

Mohammed and Hamida, a learning disabled couple, were living in a residential assessment centre so their parenting skills could be assessed by the local social services department. CCTV cameras were installed, including in their bedroom. Social workers explained that the cameras were there to observe them performing their parental duties and for the protection of their baby. The couple were especially distressed by use of the CCTV cameras in their bedroom during the night. With the help of a visiting neighbour, the couple successfully invoked their right to respect for private life (Article 8). They explained that they did not want their intimacy to be monitored, and that the baby slept in a separate nursery in any case. As a result, the social services team agreed to switch off the cameras during the night so that Mohammed and Hamida could enjoy their evenings together in privacy.

Mrs. Ogundoyin was an 89 year old woman living in an NHS-run nursing home in London. She was considered by staff to be extremely difficult, not least because she shouted continuously in the mornings. A consultant geriatrician who had worked with BIHR was very concerned by the situation and tried to understand why her behaviour was so hostile. This was challenging because the woman suffered from dementia and found it difficult to talk about her state of mind. The consultant got in touch with Mrs. Ogundoyin’s daughter who shared important information about her mother’s life prior to moving to the home. Mrs. Ogundoyin had had heavy caring responsibilities when she was younger, in addition to working long hours as a cleaner. This busy schedule meant she had become used to getting up at 5am each day for most of her adult life. It emerged that the reason she became so agitated in the mornings was because she was being left in bed until 11am each day.

The consultant explained to staff that in order to deliver a rights-respecting service, they needed to take into account the individual needs of the people in their care. In this case it meant that Mrs. Ogundoyin’s preferred routine should be taken into account as far as possible, to respect her right to respect for private life (Article 8). With a little bit of knowledge about the Human Rights Act and their responsibilities, the staff were empowered to make small but significant changes. Mrs. Ogundoyin is now helped out of bed at 5am each morning, given breakfast, and left to enjoy the rest of her morning. Her shouting and difficult behaviour has ceased, leaving Mrs. Ogundoyin and the staff much better off.

A local authority had a policy of providing school transport for children with special educational needs living more than 3 miles from their school. Sarah, a young learning disabled girl lived 2.8 miles from the special school she attended. Despite being unable to travel on her own, she was advised by the local authority that she should instead take two buses to and from school each day. An independent advocate who had attended a BIHR training session supported Sarah’s mum to challenge the decision using human rights language. Sarah’s mum approached the head of the school and explained that the transport decision was a disproportionate interference with her daughter’s right to respect for private life (Article 8), given the failure to consider her individual circumstances. The head teacher took the issue to the local authority, and the decision was reversed. Sarah was provided with transport to and from school from then on, making a real difference to her life.

Kay, who has mental health problems, was struggling more and more after the death of her husband. She was placed in 24-hour supported care and her children, Jimmy and Jess were fostered. It was agreed that the children could visit their mum three times a week, but this gradually dwindled to one visit per week because the local authority did not have enough staff to supervise the visits. Both Kay and her children were very distressed by this. Kay’s advocate noted that the local children’s services department had not been invited to regular meetings to discuss Kay’s care, and that Jess and Jimmy’s interests were not being properly represented as a result. After attending a BIHR training session, the advocate referred to the children’s right to respect for family life (Article 8) in her discussions with the mental health team and convinced them to invite children’s services to the next meeting. Following this the three visits each week were restored. From this point onwards, the manager of the children’s care team personally saw to it that each visit took place as promised. Kay and her children have remained very close and recently were able to enjoy a holiday together.

Paul was a young person who had suffered traumatic experiences in his home borough over 14 years. He was involved in a lengthy legal battle to be rehoused somewhere he felt safe, away from the trauma of his past.

Paul attended a youth empowerment project run by BIHR and a local supported housing organisation. We ran sessions on the Human Rights Act and explored with young people what this meant for them and their lives. This gave him the confidence to speak up and apply his rights to the difficult situation he was facing.

Paul decided to write a letter to the court. He explained how he felt his rights had been interfered with and the impact this had had on his mental and physical well-being, which he had learned was protected by Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

Following this, Paul was provided with safe housing outside the borough. He said the most important outcome for him was not only his rehousing, but the feeling that he had a right to a voice and to be heard.

Using the Human Rights Act to ensure that a mother and her children, who have fled domestic violence, are supported by social services to access safe housing. An advocacy example, without court action.

Yolande and her children were fleeing domestic violence, and her husband’s attempts to track them down as they moved from town to town across the UK. Time and again the family would be uprooted, having to move on every time he discovered their whereabouts.

Eventually, they arrived in London, and were referred to social services in their borough. However, what could have been the family’s first reprieve after months of uncertainty and fear turned into another ordeal in itself.

Social workers told Yolande that the constant moving of her children meant she was an unfit parent and that she had made the family intentionally homeless. They said that they had no choice but to place her children in foster care.

Yolande sought independent advice from a charity working with women who have experienced domestic violence, who had been supported through BIHR training on the Human Rights Act. A support worker helped Yolande to challenge social services’ decision. Yolande said she thought the decision had failed to respect her own right to respect for family life (Article 8), and the right to family life of her children.

Looking at the situation from a human rights perspective helped change the conversation. Social services reconsidered the issue, taking the family’s human rights into account, and worked with Yolande and her children to find a suitable solution. They all agreed that the family would remain together, and that social services would help cover some of the essential costs of securing private rented accommodation.

For Yolande and her children, being supported to find a new home was an essential step in rebuilding a new life in safety after a distressing and turbulent time.

Patrick is a learning disabled man living in the North West of England. One afternoon a district nurse, Mary, paid him a visit at home, and was very concerned by what she saw. Patrick was living in a small single room that functioned as a bedroom, living room and bathroom all in one. His shower wasn’t working, forcing him to use a hand towel and bowl for washing, and the toilet was close to the bed. Ensuring access to proper washing facilities should have been a high priority for Patrick’s housing provider, as he often soiled himself and spread faeces around the room.

Mary raised her concerns with social services first of all, as Patrick was paying for his accommodation with some assistance from a support package arranged by them. However, they refused to accept that there was anything wrong with his living arrangements.

In need of some more information, Mary talked to the equalities team at her local NHS Trust, who had been working with BIHR. The equalities team explained that the Human Rights Act might be relevant. They suggested that Patrick’s living arrangements could be having a negative impact on his human rights, and specifically his right to respect for private life (Article 8) and his right not to be treated in an inhuman and degrading way (Article 3). They explained that his right to private life might be compromised by the cramped and unsanitary state of his room. Additionally, the fact that Patrick often had to spend long periods of time covered in his own faeces, with no suitable way of washing himself, meant that he was potentially experiencing inhuman and degrading treatment.

With some concrete information about Patrick’s human rights and the local authority’s duty under the Human Rights Act to respect them, Mary was able to return to social services, and also get in touch with the housing provider. She set out how in her opinion, Patrick’s rights were at risk under his present living arrangements, and that both services had a duty to protect Patrick’s dignity.

Framing the situation using human rights language completely changed the conversation in Patrick’s case. Social services reconsidered its initial response to Mary’s concerns, and found new accommodation for Patrick that was far more suited to his needs.He now has a little more space and proper washing facilities, and his quality of life is hugely improved as a result. Speaking to BIHR, Mary said “The Human Rights Act is there to be used and has been really helpful in this case.”

Siobhan was a patient in a mental health hospital in London. She had a history of self-harm and had attempted to take her own life in the past. Siobhan was under 24-hour observation, and was very distressed that she was not allowed to close the door to her room, or use the bathroom on her own.

This caused conflict with staff on the ward. Lisa, a nurse on the ward, felt under particular pressure, because management was very happy with the policy. They argued that it was working successfully and that the observation must continue in order to keep Siobhan safe. However, Siobhan became very angry with Lisa on several occasions and Lisa sometimes felt worried about her own safety.

Siobhan’s psychiatrist had assessed her on a number of occasions. She believed that Siobhan would attempt to harm herself again and might attempt to take her own life. The hospital had a duty to protect Siobhan’s life under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act for as long as her life was at risk, and she was in their care. However Siobhan’s psychiatrist also acknowledged that although the constant observation was being carried out to protect Siobhan’s life, it was an interference with her right to respect for private life (Article 8). This was causing her considerable distress, with potential implications for her recovery. Lisa’s right to respect for her private life would also be negatively affected if Siobhan did anything to harm her.

Siobhan’s advocate, who had worked with BIHR on an advocacy project, suggested that Siobhan and her treatment team meet to discuss these issues. Siobhan explained to her psychiatrist that being under 24-hour observation was causing her great anguish. She asked the treatment team to explain why she was under observation, and how long it would last. Once the team had done this, they worked with Siobhan to decide on some less intrusive measures that could be taken, that would still keep her safe. Together they agreed that she could close the door to the bathroom provided that she was searched first, with the door kept unlocked, while a nurse waited outside.

Being given the opportunity to express her feelings, and be part of the conversation about how her treatment could be changed, gave Siobhan much-needed comfort. Her relationship was also much better. Afterwards, Siobhan told her advocate that she could now see that the observation process was not a form of punishment, as she’d thought, but was instead designed to protect her human rights.

The right to peaceful protest - to make your views known, and to publicly stand up for what you believe in - is part of our democracy that many take for granted. For Kevin and Pennie, however, it was the Human Rights Act that made this a reality.

In 2003, Kevin and Pennie were on their way to a demonstration outside the annual arms fair at London Docklands, when police stopped and searched them under the Terrorism Act. Kevin was stopped for 20 minutes before being allowed to leave. Pennie was ordered to stop filming the protest, even though she is a journalist, and was wearing a photographer’s jacket and showed her press card. She later described being so intimidated that she didn’t return to the protest.

Kevin and Pennie disagreed with the actions of the police – they were concerned that the broad powers contained in the Terrorism Act allowed stop and search without reason. They decided to ask a court to look at the issue. During the hearing, it emerged that since 2001 the whole area of Greater London had been designated to allow police to stop and search anyone without suspicion, including those lawfully going about their day-to-day activities.

Kevin and Pennie’s legal case went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court decided that public stop and search raised issues under the right to respect for private life (Article 8). The question was whether such an interference was allowed because there was a law that permitted it, and whether that law was being used properly. The Court found that searching the protestor and the journalist was not a proper use of the law – the powers given to the police were too wide. There were also no safeguards to stop such powers being used inappropriately to prevent free expression under Article 10 and free assembly under Article 11. The Court found Kevin and Pennie had each had their right to respect for private life violated.

This led to important changes which have improved the protection of everyone’s human rights. The powers under the Terrorism Act were repealed, and replaced by powers with better safeguards that limit their use only to instances of suspected terrorism, so public safety is still protected. This helps to protect our freedom of speech when we want to peacefully protest, as well as the private lives of members of the general public.

The right to liberty (Article 5) is a right that can be restricted in certain circumstances; perhaps to keep a person safe from harm, or to protect the wider community. Detaining a personunder the Mental Health Act for their own safety, and so that they can receive treatment, is one such circumstance in which a person’s right to liberty might be restricted. However, even when a person is detained in this way they have a right to certain information, including the reason(s) for their detention, and methods of challenging it.

A mental health hospital in a large UK city had an informal practice of sectioning people seeking asylum, who spoke little or no English, without the use of an interpreter. After participating in a BIHR training session, members of a user-led mental health befriending scheme at the hospital realised that this practice might be a cause for concern. By using human rights language members of the befriending scheme were able to successfully challenge and change what was happening at the hospital. The group spoke with staff at the hospital and explained that because the people being detained were unable to understand why, or how they might challenge their detention, their detention might be unlawful because it wasn’t meeting the safeguards set out in the right to liberty (Article 5). The group also spoke to staff about people’s right not to be discriminated against (Article 14), in this case on the grounds that they didn’t speak English.

With a little bit of accurate and easy to understand information about the Human Rights Act and the hospital’s duties to respect patient rights, the befriending group were able to work with staff to change the policy on interpreters. Now people seeking asylum who are detained have access to the same information as everyone else – a crucial safeguard for anyone with restrictions placed on their liberty.

Luke lives in London and sometimes experiences mental health problems. The last time he went to a mental health ward he experienced some issues with the way staff treated him. He was very unhappy about the way he had been restrained during a challenging episode. Luke had been restrained before and he told his advocate he knew it was sometimes necessary for his safety and other peoples. The most recent time though he thought the restraint had been done to punish him. His arm was pushed up to his back and his thumb was pushed away in a way that was very painful. His hand was injured and he had to get medical treatment.

Luke asked his advocate to make a written complaint – he wanted the ward manager to reassure him that this sort of restraint would not happen again. His advocate wrote in the letter that Luke’s treatment might have been inhuman or degrading, which would breach Article 3 of the Human Rights Act. This led to a formal investigation, so the matter could be looked at properly. Although it was found that the restraint Luke had experienced was not inappropriate in the circumstances, this did prompt staff to think more carefully about the rights of service users. A new training programme was put in place so staff could ensure that when restraint was used it was done safely.

Peter is a 91-year-old veteran of the Second World War. Peter has health problems, including dementia, but he likes living in his own home. He sees friends and enjoys looking after his pet cat Fluffy.

Some of Peter’s friends became concerned that Peter was being financially abused and they were worried about his ability to look after himself. His local council then took action which meant he was held in a locked unit for 17 months. Although the records said Peter went with them voluntarily, he was clearly reluctant to do so, and distressed. Facts are disputed but he is said to have been wearing his dressing gown at the time, without trousers or pyjama bottoms.

This case went to Court, where it was decided that the council's treatment of Peter amounted to breaches of his human rights to liberty and to respect for private and family life (Articles 5 and 8 of the HRA). These breaches were said to be made worse because had they not happened, Peter would have continued to live at home, where he was happy, with support. The council ended up giving Peter £60,000 in damages for false imprisonment. But most importantly, Peter was able to return home, reunited with Fluffy and his friends. He now has the right care support package and is reportedly happy and contented.

Mrs Smith has a 13-year-old son, Daniel. Daniel has Down’s syndrome and a long history of causing harm to himself and his family due to diagnosed behavioural disorders. As a result of the local authority’s refusal to provide additional support, Daniel had not been out of the family home for weeks and Mrs Smith was extremely concerned that he was going to seriously harm himself or another member of his family.

The Down ’s syndrome Association had previously worked with BIHR on using the Human Rights Act to support the families and carers they work with. Their approach is not a combative one – instead they encourage local authorities and service providers to use the HRA as a decision-making framework. This makes it easier for carers to explain to local authorities how their decisions might have a negative impact on families, even when the local authority is trying to act according to what it thinks are their best interests.

In this case, the DSA wrote to the local authority arguing that their failure to provide the family with necessary support risked breaching the rights of Daniel and his mother to respect for private and family life (Article 8).

Daniel’s respite care was soon increased, and arrangements were made by the local authority for him and his family to access further assessment and support. Daniel had lots more to do and his behavioural disorders gradually began to improve; as a result he and his family were able to enjoy their time spent together again.

Mersey Care NHS Trust realised that it was difficult for children to visit their relatives in secure mental health settings in Liverpool. A group of children working with Barnado’s to address some of the difficulties they faced as young carers explained that they were finding the ward environment unwelcoming, chaotic and frightening. Without a safe space for children to visit their relatives, families were finding it difficult to maintain their relationships, and this was affecting their right to family life, protected by Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

In addition to their collaboration with Barnado’s, Mersey Care had also been working with BIHR to develop a human rights-based approach to service design and delivery. So when concerns were raised about children’s negative experiences staff were able to recognise this as a human rights issue, and they began to think creatively about steps that they could take to improve their facilities.

The Trust looked at providing family visiting rooms, and developed the ‘Jelly Baby’ kite mark; a specialised visiting area for families designed in consultation with children. Children told them that it was important that the rooms were away from the ward environment, comfortable and ‘home like’, and contained toys and things to play with. Young people were involved in the design and decor of these rooms and invited to ‘inspect’ the quality of the family rooms provided by the Trust, before awarding the Jelly Baby’ kite mark to ensure they were meeting the standards set out by young people.

Any soldier seeking to join the SAS would know that if accepted for the elite regiment they might one day have to lay down their lives in the course of their duty. This is a risk they and the families of soldiers understand. But how many could imagine this happening, not on a dangerous and secret mission far from home, but in the Brecon Beacons of Wales? How many could imagine it happening before they had even been accepted for the world-famous Special Forces regiment?

In July 2013, three soldiers on an arduous SAS selection exercise collapsed in 30 degree heat. Two of them, Trooper Eddie Maher and Lance Corporal Craig John Roberts, died that day. The third, Corporal James Dunsby, died 17 days later. All three were experienced soldiers used to serving in hot conditions.

The Coroner and the Ministry of Defence agreed that the soldiers’ right to life under the Human Rights Act (Article 2) meant that a full inquiry must be held on whether their deaths could have been prevented. Under the Human Rights Act when somebody dies in circumstances in which the state might be involved, there should be a full investigation into their death.

So it was that the SAS, motto “Who Dares Wins”, found itself the subject of a criminal investigation, looking at whether there had been gross negligence. Ultimately, there was no prosecution but the regiment was ordered to examine how it conducts its selection exercises. The often unspoken role of the Human Rights Act in making sure there are full and proper investigations of Government decision-making is vital for making sure our democracy is fair and accountable.

Priya and Sunil have two young children who they adore. They also both have learning disabilities. Social services wanted to make sure the children were safe and being well-cared for by Priya and Sunil. The decision to monitor the situation turned into staff arriving at the family’s home every day without warning. Priya and Sunil found this very distressing. They ended up being in a near constant state of anxiety and were frightened to open the door. Understandably, this had a real impact on their family time and it was difficult for them to enjoy things with their children.

Priya was in touch with an advocacy service who had received training from BIHR. Priya’s advocate explained how the Human Rights Act protected the rights of the family members to respect for family and private life (Article 8). With the advocate’s support, Priya and Sunil explained to social services that they understood their right to respect for private and family life could be restricted to safeguard their children’s right not to be harmed, but that such restrictions need to be proportionate. They felt the daily unannounced visits weren’t proportionate, and explained how the visits were having a negative impact on them and the children.

Social services agreed that in the future, they would arrange their visits with Priya and Sunil in advance so that they could get some control back over their lives, unless there was an emergency. Priya and Sunil feel like they have been able to regain their privacy and family time.

Laura is a consultant who works with older people, and having worked with BIHR is a keen proponent of human rights in NHS services. She was visiting a nursing home in London when she saw several residents were effectively trapped in special ‘tilt-back’ chairs. The chairs were being used because they stopped people in the home from trying to get up, falling and hurting themselves.

Sadly, this meant many older people who could walk weren’t able to get up and out of the chairs. Instead they had to wait for staff to come and get them out of the chairs so they could go to the toilet or go and get something to eat. The residents at the home who were previously very independent could no longer choose what they wanted to do with their days, and because they couldn’t walk around very often, they started to find walking very difficult.

Laura was concerned this practice in the home raised human rights issues. She talked to the residents who were kept in the chairs, who told her they felt their dignity and independence was being taken away from them. Laura realised that by not allowing the residents who could walk the freedom to move around, their dignity and autonomy, protected by the right to private life in the Human Rights Act (Article 8) was being risked. She was also concerned that for some of the residents, it might even be inhuman or degrading treatment, which is never allowed under the Human Rights Act (Article 3). Laura raised her concerns with the staff and using human rights language they were able to see that treating all of the residents the same in order to protect the few who needed the tilt-back chairs was not appropriate. Residents who could walk were no longer placed in the tilt back chairs and staff encouraged them to start using their walking skills again.

On 5 August 2009, Joanna Michael dialled 999 and told the call handler that her ex-partner had threatened to kill her. The handler mis-heard her, thinking she had said ‘hit’ and when she transferred the call to Cardiff police, did not grade the call as requiring an immediate response. The police station was a five minute drive from Joanna’s house, but the police were instructed to respond within an hour; 25 minutes later, Joanna called 999 again and the operator heard her scream before the line went dead. This time the police were at her house in less than 10 minutes, sadly they found Joanna had been stabbed to death.

When what happened came to light, Joanna’s family wanted to seek justice for Joanna. The family started a legal case against the police arguing they were negligent in mis-handling Joanna’s 999 call. They also argued that the police had failed to take reasonable steps to protect Joanna’s right to life under the Human Rights Act (Article 2). Despite common assumptions, negligence rarely applies to police forces. So when the court rejected the negligence argument, the Human Rights Act provided the only chance for Joanna’s family to hold the police to account.

The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether Joanna’s family could go ahead with their Human Rights Act claim. They decided that, yes, there were circumstances where police inaction could breach the right to life. They decided there should be a trial to decide whether the police did in fact breach Joanna’s right to life by their failings. This case can now proceed.

Home Office staff began conducting surprise raids at accommodation for people who had recently arrived in the UK and who had sought asylum here. The visits took place at dawn, and there were no interpreters present. The residents were abruptly woken, and forced to answer questions, despite the fact that they had usually had very little sleep, after arriving at the accommodation late at night. They were often frightened and unable to understand what they were being asked. A voluntary sector organisation, having received human rights training from BIHR and legal advice from Liberty, challenged this practice on the basis that it interfered with the residents’ right to respect for private life (Article 8). They argued that there were less intrusive methods that the Home Office could employ to keep a record of who was staying at the accommodation. The Home Office conceded, and stopped the dawn raids, meaning that residents were able to begin the process of seeking asylum without fear of intimidation in their own home.

Philip is a learning disabled man living in a residential care home. One evening he slipped and hurt himself while bathing, and subsequently became very anxious about getting in the bath. In order to reassure him and rebuild his confidence the care home managers arranged for a carer, usually female, to sit in the room with him as he bathed.

Philip’s female carers felt uncomfortable with the arrangement. One carer, Jane, reflected during a BIHR training session: ‘I knew in my heart he was being treated without dignity, and now I recognise that his human rights are perhaps being violated.’

A discussion of the human rights principle of dignity had served as a ‘trigger’ for Jane and together with co-workers she was able to develop solutions that would both protect Philip’s dignity, whilst also providing him with the support he needed.

She decided to use human rights language in her discussions with the care home managers about Philip’s care. Specifically, Jane explained that Philip had a right not to be treated in an inhuman and degrading way (Article 3), and a right to respect for his private life (Article 8). She suggested that in order for Philip’s rights to be respected, a new care assessment should be carried out, as in her view he needed proper manual assistance with getting in and out of the bath. In the meantime she resolved to erect a screen in the bathroom for herself and other carers to sit behind while Philip bathed, to preserve his dignity.

Janet was staying in hospital after a stroke. She had been a prisoner of war in Japan during World War Two, which had led to some mental health problems. Hospital staff saw Janet re-enacting experiences from her time as a POW, like washing her clothes with rocks and hanging them out to dry on the hospital fence. After some time, hospital staff wanted to move Janet to a care home, as it would be cheaper to provide care there.

Janet’s advocate, Steve, was concerned about this decision as Janet had said she wanted to return to her own home. The hospital was pushing for the care home placement because of the mental health issues Janet was displaying. However, working with Janet, Steve thought that it was being in the hospital’s institutional setting that was causing her to relive the past, and that a care home would make things worse.

Steve accessed human rights training from BIHR. During his advocacy with the hospital and local authority Steve was able to refer to Janet’s human right to respect for private life under the Human Rights Act (Article 8), which includes having a say in decisions that affect us, and protecting mental well-being. He explained how putting Janet into residential care could compromise her human rights, whereas supporting her to return home as she wanted could respect her human rights and help her recover. Following Steve’s human rights advocacy, the local authority decided it was able to support Janet’s care at home.

A women’s centre in London found that Irish Traveller families were being placed in temporary accommodation for long periods of time. This meant the older children would grow up, and by the time the family was offered permanent accommodation, they were being told that children over 18 could no longer live with the family. Moreover, the older children were being told to make separate housing applications elsewhere.

The families found this very distressing. Parents were being forced to either turn their children away and split the family up, or risk allowing them to stay at home secretly to try and keep the family together. The women’s centre were able to access training on the Human Rights Act from BIHR. This meant they were able to look at the situation being faced by the families through a human rights lens. The centre realised that splitting up families like this interfered with their rights to private and family life under the Human Rights Act (Article 8), and while this right can be restricted when necessary and proportionate, that didn’t seem to be the case here. The centre supported the families to talk to the local authority using the language of the Human Rights Act. This helped explain the impact of what was happening on parents and children. The local authority looked again at the decision, and it was decided that the families could continue living together.

Frannie was discharged from her London mental health hospital before she felt ready. She has recurring thoughts about ending her own life and became frightened after discharge because her follow-up meeting was delayed and didn’t take place within the seven days it was supposed to.

Jean, Frannie’s advocate was concerned about the situation and spoke to the care and support team. Jean talked about Frannie’s right to life under the Human Rights Act (Article 2) and how services should be taking positive steps to protect her life because Frannie’s care and treatment team knew that she was at risk of suicide. Such steps could include ensuring Frannie had the support she needed.

Initially, the care and support team had offered Frannie a meeting with a support worker once every two weeks. After Jean had raised Frannie’s right to life, the support meetings were increased to once a week. Jean believes that the Human Rights Act made the difference in Frannie’s cases. She said “human rights are so powerful – staff do take their jobs seriously and are trying to do what’s right.”

Human Rights through the Ages premiered at our Human Rights Tour 2012. It highlights a handful of historical events that have contributed to our modern understanding of human rights, with a bit of tongue in cheek media commentary thrown in. It has proved extremely popular, have a watch and see what you think!

Co-produced with advocacy groups this guide shows how the rights and duties in the Human Rights Act can help strengthen support for people with mental health problems. It uses handy tables, flowcharts, case studies, and worked through examples.